Turko-Russian powder-keg

[Gamston 10]

Well once again Gamston, the people making the decision (Nato) disagrees with you.

From the Nato secretary general:

 

 

 

Well you overlook or dont realise there had already been several incursions which the turks had warned Russia about. They do know the reason the plane was there go and do some background reading.

 

You cant see the difference betwen being kicked out of Nato as you want and then the same countries asking to keep bases there. Turkey has been a highly valuable member of Nato and one of the reasons they wnated to keep them was to stop them allying with the Russians.

 

Common sense tells me the NATO Secretary General and leaders of major NATO members will have had private talks with Turkey regarding their act of stupidity .

 

At the moment Turkey are a liability to NATO

Edited November 25, 2015 by Gamston
typo error

[999tigger 10]

Dunno Tigger, just remember it seemed a bit childish at the time, russia was humiliated, the west pointed and laughed. Putin came along to "give russia her pride back, blah, blah". Now we seem to be back to the cold war.

 

It serves his purpose. Its depressing they cna see the west as enemies and they still fly bombers against UK defences. I think the west was relieved that they were under less threat of being attacked if you remember how grim it was in the cold war. Hopefully things will settle down.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

They are both unwelcome incursions and both pose some risks, although the risk of attack by the so called refugess is probably higher than the risk of being attacked by a lone aircraft.

 

Surely you don't believe it's the same airplane that's been making all the constant incursions into Turkey?

 

Maybe the fact that Turkey had the Soviet army facing it only across their border for over 4 decades, coupled with having to witness Russia invading one of it's neighbours recently may have made Turkey a bit twitchy about Russia's intentions?

[999tigger 10]

the Turks have no problem violating the Greeks airspace and have a long history of doing it.

 

http://greece.greekreporter.com/2015/03/02/greece-protests-10-month-turkish-military-exercise-in-greek-airspace/

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/30/greece-turkey-imia-kardak-tensions-fighter-jets

 

and I could go on

 

Nobody said politicians cant be hypocrites.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Common sense tells be the NATO Secretary General and leaders of major NATO members will have had private talks with Turkey regarding their act of stupidity .

 

At the moment Turkey are a liability to NATO

 

Nope, Turkey is a key defence partner on NATO's flank.

[betterman 10]

Not really a fair comparison, but an incursion by a military jet is much more visible and the decision to shoot it down was largely political becayse thats how international polictis work.

 

Which refugees are you talking about?

 

If they are refugees then they need to eb treated accordingly, but that will be done by forces on the gorund and at the borders. In any event the Genevan conventions will apply.

 

Heh im catching up with you.

 

Unarmed becayse I believe they are stopped at the borders and I dont believe theres significant stories of armed refugees roaming Turkey. The Turks are perfectly entitled to disarm them as would any country they pass through. You do seem to be straying a bit off point and turning it into a migrant thread.

 

ISIS informed us that they would flood Eroupe with an army of fighters and nothing is done to stop them, one aircraft apparantly strays over the border but poses no risk and its OK to blow it out of the sky.

[cassity 10]

.

 

At the moment Turkey are a liability to NATO

 

It could be argued Turkey indirectly probed the soviets retaliatory response..as for it being a liability..I doubt it considering NATO bases there.

[betterman 10]

Surely you don't believe it's the same airplane that's been making all the constant incursions into Turkey?

 

Maybe the fact that Turkey had the Soviet army facing it only across their border for over 4 decades, coupled with having to witness Russia invading one of it's neighbours recently may have made Turkey a bit twitchy about Russia's intentions?

 

I think it was a lone aircraft that posed no risk to Turkey, not sure I like the idea of a NATO partner being twitchy enough to drag us all into a war with Russia.

[999tigger 10]

ISIS informed us that they would flood Eroupe with an army of fighters and nothing is done to stop them, one aircraft apparantly strays over the border but poses no risk and its OK to blow it out of the sky.

 

How do you know nothing is done to stop them?

 

A nations airspace is normally constantly patrolled and protected. If you have radar and sufficient aircraft then its easy to monitor your borders. The decision to shoot it down was partly political becayse the planes were bombing alloes of the Turks and parly just Turkey flexing its muscles.

 

ISIS inform the media of lots of things, but theres no reason to believe an entire army of armed insurgents have made it across the borders. Ofc some will sneek in becayse you cna smuggle people, but its quite a lot of effort. most of the paris incident was from people already here. Its a much different task vetting hundreds of thousands of people, sodont really think you are comparing like with like , although your last comment makes much more sense about your concerns.

Edited November 25, 2015 by 999tigger

[cassity 10]

ISIS informed us that they would flood Eroupe with an army of fighters and nothing is done to stop them, one aircraft apparantly strays over the border but poses no risk and its OK to blow it out of the sky.

 

It's a conflict zone, the Russians know this..flying into Turkeys airspace was a risk they were prepared to take..don't moan about it when you come a cropper...which in effect is exactly what the Russians have done, other than a token diplomatic spit.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

I think it was a lone aircraft that posed no risk to Turkey, not sure I like the idea of a NATO partner being twitchy enough to drag us all into a war with Russia.

 

Wouldn't NATO'S support and backing of Turkey be a far more effective way to calm them down against the Russian threat, rather then criticising and abandoning them?

[betterman 10]

How do you know nothing is done to stop them?

 

A nations airspace is normally constantly patrolled and protected. If you have radar and sufficient aircraft then its easy to monitor your borders. The decision to shoot it down was partly political becayse the planes were bombing alloes of the Turks and parly just Turkey flexing its muscles.

 

ISIS inform the media of lots of things, but theres no reason to believe an entire army of armed insurgents have made it across the borders. Ofc some will sneek in becayse you cna smuggle people, but its quite a lot of effort. most of the paris incident was from people already here. Its a much different task vetting hundreds of thousands of people, sodont really think you are comparing like with like , although your last comment makes much more sense about your concerns.

 

I know because I watch the news. I agree it isn't like for like because the rusian aircraft posed no risk to Eroupe whilst the so called migrants that are flooding in from Turkey do pose a risk.

 

---------- Post added 25-11-2015 at 21:08 ----------

 

Wouldn't NATO'S support and backing of Turkey be a far more effective way to calm them down against the Russian threat, rather then criticising and abandoning them?

 

NATO's public condemnation of Turkies unprovoked attack would calm it down faster.